Darwin didnt actually see the "origin" of species. He saw diversity in nature and organisms and hypothesized about how they came into being. The appeal of the theory probably wasnt so much the evidence for it, rather it was a great natural explanation for the history of life.

Darwin didnt actually see the "origin" of species. He saw diversity in nature and organisms and hypothesized about how they came into being. The appeal of the theory probably wasnt so much the evidence for it, rather it was a great natural explanation for the history of life.

Yes this is what I think as well. In that it allowed the naturalist an explanation that fit within his / her own worldview, hence confirming that in the evolution-creation debate it is merely a fight of worldviews not between evidence and non-evidence.

How then can evolution be claimed to be science when creationists use the same method of inference yet it is not called science? (Keep in mind that the scientific method claims nothing like "assume the conclusion that seems the most logical". Also keep in mind that being logical doesn't mean it is true- in Darwins time it was logical to believe that the cell was a blob of jelly)

Additionally doesn't Dawkins state that we should only believe in something if we have evidence for it? How then can he believe in evolution when there is no experimental evidence for it?

Stemming from this how then can Dawkins claim to be part of an intellectual elite when this simple contradiction goes unnoticed?

Yes this is what I think as well. In that it allowed the naturalist an explanation that fit within his / her own worldview, hence confirming that in the evolution-creation debate it is merely a fight of worldviews not between evidence and non-evidence.

How then can evolution be claimed to be science when creationists use the same method of inference yet it is not called science? (Keep in mind that the scientific method claims nothing like "assume the conclusion that seems the most logical". Also keep in mind that being logical doesn't mean it is true- in Darwins time it was logical to believe that the cell was a blob of jelly)

Additionally doesn't Dawkins state that we should only believe in something if we have evidence for it? How then can he believe in evolution when there is no experimental evidence for it?

Stemming from this how then can Dawkins claim to be part of an intellectual elite when this simple contradiction goes unnoticed?

Just seems like a whole heap of smoke and mirrors to me

I am sure you are being rhetorical but, I will venture an answer. There is one thing both sides have in common. On both sides of the argument are human beings. Since we are human beings, we are all crearive. Creativity by definition is the ability to bring a thing or an idea into existence. We then push a switch in our mind to make our idea "truth.". Voila! After that,we can go around gathering "evidence" to suppor our new "idea baby.". we ignor all "evidence" that might contradict what we want to believe!

"Evidence" is always biased by the observer. We.humans, by virtue of being human, create ideas, validate them in our own mind and then proceed to sell them to others. As they say, "That's the nature of the beast!" Because I bleieve in the commonality of creativity, I have a hard time buyig evolution. Creativity rules!

I am sure you are being rhetorical but, I will venture an answer. There is one thing both sides have in common. On both sides of the argument are human beings. Since we are human beings, we are all crearive. Creativity by definition is the ability to bring a thing or an idea into existence. We then push a switch in our mind to make our idea "truth.". Voila! After that,we can go around gathering "evidence" to suppor our new "idea baby.". we ignor all "evidence" that might contradict what we want to believe!

"Evidence" is always biased by the observer. We.humans, by virtue of being human, create ideas, validate them in our own mind and then proceed to sell them to others. As they say, "That's the nature of the beast!" Because I bleieve in the commonality of creativity, I have a hard time buyig evolution. Creativity rules!

Yes very true, and it comes back to human bias and how such affects what we claim to be logical. However I am honestly asking for Darwins initial evidence and how it was experimentally verified. I am asking this since if there was no experimentation or if the evidence is merely "this looks like this therefore we believe this is what happened", (much like how people believed the sun went around the Earth), then there is no actual reason anyone can claim evolution as a scientific idea in its first incarnation.

Additionally if this trend was extended, (which I am quite confident it has), then again there is no reason to claim evolution as scientific due to the lack of direct empirical verification.

I am somewhat being rhetorical however I am doing so by asking the evolutionist to be frank about the evidence and perhaps see that it isn't as scientific as people make it out to be. As far as I know, it is merely just-so stories based on assumptions made on observation, (no empirical verification of claims, the scientific method doesn't state to assume the conclusion). This is not scientific in the empirical sense or via the scientific method.... perhaps it is a social science however such isn't the same as Biology, Physics, Chemistry etc.

Yes very true, and it comes back to human bias and how such affects what we claim to be logical. However I am honestly asking for Darwins initial evidence and how it was experimentally verified. I am asking this since if there was no experimentation or if the evidence is merely "this looks like this therefore we believe this is what happened", (much like how people believed the sun went around the Earth), then there is no actual reason anyone can claim evolution as a scientific idea in its first incarnation.

Additionally if this trend was extended, (which I am quite confident it has), then again there is no reason to claim evolution as scientific due to the lack of direct empirical verification.

I am somewhat being rhetorical however I am doing so by asking the evolutionist to be frank about the evidence and perhaps see that it isn't as scientific as people make it out to be. As far as I know, it is merely just-so stories based on assumptions made on observation, (no empirical verification of claims, the scientific method doesn't state to assume the conclusion). This is not scientific in the empirical sense or via the scientific method.... perhaps it is a social science however such isn't the same as Biology, Physics, Chemistry etc.

ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Repeat the test of your Hypothesis and compare to see if similar to the first results

Communicate Your Results

Above you will find a typical version of the so called scientific method. Actually all of us have a sub routine in our software we use everyday called by psychologists, "logical operations."

we do experiments to see if it's safe to cross a street, test our soup to see if it is to hot to eat, etc. Therefore, we are all scientists.

Take a look at my example of the sun. If I am going to believe something other than what we both may observe (the sun appearing to travel across the sky) then I (we) would have to have faith in the veracity of the person sharing the seemingly conflicting information with us. We would have to believe that they had an absence of bias.Moreover, have they been far enough out and long enough out in space to have actually observed the " the earth traveling around the sun? That is a lot to ask from ourselves let alone others who by virtue of the fact that they claim they already have decided evolution is true (bias to the hilt).

I think we both admit our bias. I admit I believe in creationism--mostly because I am creative and believe creationism is ever so much more efficient than "imagined" evolution. Our argument may be to convince evos that creativity is shared by boths side and

'it' is more efficient and therefore more logical than eons and eons of time it takes to evolve something that we may not even want to exist.

Convincing someone ( an evo) that they created the idea of evolution instead of observed it is a significant issue.

Everyday people use creatvity to get things done. this fact seems to be missed by evos who are anti-supernaturalistically biased.

In our solar system we earthlings are supernatural. As far as we know we are the only beings that live on any of the planets in our system (that makes us supernatural).

Repeat the test of your Hypothesis and compare to see if similar to the first results

Communicate Your Results

Above you will find a typical version of the so called scientific method. Actually all of us have a sub routine in our software we use everyday called by psychologists, "logical operations."

we do experiments to see if it's safe to cross a street, test our soup to see if it is to hot to eat, etc. Therefore, we are all scientists.

Take a look at my example of the sun. If I am going to believe something other than what we both may observe (the sun appearing to travel across the sky) then I (we) would have to have faith in the veracity of the person sharing the seemingly conflicting information with us. We would have to believe that they had an absence of bias.Moreover, have they been far enough out and long enough out in space to have actually observed the " the earth traveling around the sun? That is a lot to ask from ourselves let alone others who by virtue of the fact that they claim they already have decided evolution is true (bias to the hilt).

I think we both admit our bias. I admit I believe in creationism--mostly because I am creative and believe creationism is ever so much more efficient than "imagined" evolution. Our argument may be to convince evos that creativity is shared by boths side and

'it' is more efficient and therefore more logical than eons and eons of time it takes to evolve something that we may not even want to exist.

Convincing someone ( an evo) that they created the idea of evolution instead of observed it is a significant issue.

Everyday people use creatvity to get things done. this fact seems to be missed by evos who are anti-supernaturalistically biased.

In our solar system we earthlings ar supernatural. As far as we know we are the only beings that live on any of the planets in our system (that makes us supernatural).

I see that nowhere in the scientific method it says, "assume the conclusion" this is what evolutionists do, when we observe fossils what can we empirically glean from them... Merely the fact that something lived and is now dead and its bones became fossilised. Even with observed similarities they do not demonstrate how they came to be, furthermore there is no test you can conduct to demonstrate this method of how they came to be. Instead evolution is assumed since it seems more "logical", however as I have said elsewhere being logical doesn't say anything about truth, it merely demonstrates how that idea conforms to what you or others think the truth should be.

Yes everyone is biased, however I would have no problem if all the evolutionists, (especially the popularizers like Dawkins), could wake up and realize that the way they get their conclusions is against the scientific method and therefore evolution is not scientific. Dawkins claims that we shouldn't believe in anything unless we have evidence for it, (more specifically, of the scientific kind) therefore with Darwin's utter lack of empirical verification / testing of his hypothesis (the evolution model), on what basis was evolution first believed if we stick to Dawkins criteria?

(It is more like drawing conclusions in history, we weren't there so we have to reconstruct the scene... much like how Dawkins claims in another thread I made... Such is not science)

I see that nowhere in the scientific method it says, "assume the conclusion" this is what evolutionists do, when we observe fossils what can we empirically glean from them... Merely the fact that something lived and is now dead and its bones became fossilised. Even with observed similarities they do not demonstrate how they came to be, furthermore there is no test you can conduct to demonstrate this method of how they came to be. Instead evolution is assumed since it seems more "logical", however as I have said elsewhere being logical doesn't say anything about truth, it merely demonstrates how that idea conforms to what you or others think the truth should be.

Yes everyone is biased, however I would have no problem if all the evolutionists, (especially the popularizers like Dawkins), could wake up and realize that the way they get their conclusions is against the scientific method and therefore evolution is not scientific. Dawkins claims that we shouldn't believe in anything unless we have evidence for it, (more specifically, of the scientific kind) therefore with Darwin's utter lack of empirical verification / testing of his hypothesis (the evolution model), (It is more like drawing conclusions in history, we weren't there so we have to reconstruct the scene... much like how Dawkins claims in another thread I made... Such is not science)

Exactly. I (nor anyone else) could have said it better! But, realistically bro, how is anyone going to test and verify something that allegedly took 3.8 bllion years?

Our memories are like you said reconstructive as opposed to reproductive--like an impressionist painting (Monet).We "see" things through the bias of today--often leaving out bits of information..

Dawkins is ant-supernaturalistically biased. In his Book entitled, "The God Delusion" he rants and raves about a god he claims doesen't exist. Here is the caveat. He is supposed to believe that evolution created everything that exists--a "little" contradictory wouldn't you say--especially when evo is the alleged cause of everything--that would include the idea of there being a God? lol. He is fighting his own ideas.

"on what basis was evolution first believed if we stick to Dawkins criteria?"

Answer; ones evolutionary bias ( our and his inate ability to create what wan want to believe). I repeat. You are right! He is incongruent in his concIusions and therefore as you say un-scientific. No one on planet earth has observed the history of fossils some believe to have evolved.

Also think about this; "I see that nowhere in the scientific method it says, "assume the conclusion." "The assumption = the hypothesis (the conclusion--what we want to prove). Dawkins is not going to ask if his conclusion is correct. What test would use to prove that God does not exist? Evidence is gathered and theories constructed mentally--how else could it be done? The conclusion is evolution caused this creature (fossi) a restatement of the origina hypthesis (assumption). quite circular isn't it.

Although I have never heard it claimed, one could argue that some creatures evolved and some were created. Its easy create any idea and gather often "neutral" evidence to support it (bias again).

Darwin's evidence? There should be a view things on that:
- Present day diversity of species.
- Apparent commonalities between various species.
- Observable changes (mutation, recombination) from one generation to the other.
- Selection with a bias for survivability.
- fossils (with animals from other ages)

Then of course the theories of long ages, which helped him to fantasize rise of new species (and new families, phyla, etc.), from older ones.

Darwin's evidence? There should be a view things on that:- Present day diversity of species.- Apparent commonalities between various species.- Observable changes (mutation, recombination) from one generation to the other.- Selection with a bias for survivability.- fossils (with animals from other ages)

Then of course the theories of long ages, which helped him to fantasize rise of new species (and new families, phyla, etc.), from older ones.

To a good extent it is (making hypothesis of things he didn't himself observe or detect). If you read Origin of Species then he speculates about a lot of things. In all fairness he also provides tests for and instruction to disprove his hypothesizing and speculation.

To a good extent it is (making hypothesis of things he didn't himself observe or detect). If you read Origin of Species then he speculates about a lot of things. In all fairness he also provides tests for and instruction to disprove his hypothesizing and speculation.

He does and some of the criteria have already been met

- he stated that the lack of transitional fossils is a problem, evolutionists really have no excuse for this. The do claim that either we haven't found them all or that the transitional ones are hard to fossilize, of which these excuses are cop outs.- he stated that if something could not occur in a gradual progression bottom up, then his "theory" is falsified. (Its actually a model, but whatever ). This has already been demonstrated within the entire discipline of Biochemistry, cellular complexity for the cell to function, as well as cellular complexity so the tissue / organ / body system can function.

So in my mind evolution has already been falsified, we just have some people who cling to it because they cannot face facts and let go.

Yes this is what I think as well. In that it allowed the naturalist an explanation that fit within his / her own worldview, hence confirming that in the evolution-creation debate it is merely a fight of worldviews not between evidence and non-evidence.

How then can evolution be claimed to be science when creationists use the same method of inference yet it is not called science? (Keep in mind that the scientific method claims nothing like "assume the conclusion that seems the most logical". Also keep in mind that being logical doesn't mean it is true- in Darwins time it was logical to believe that the cell was a blob of jelly).

Its obvious why evolution is so readily accepted. Evolution has become a weapon in a cultural war.

Its obvious why evolution is so readily accepted. Evolution has become a weapon in a cultural war.

That won't explain the acceptance as such. It rather would explain the motivation of certain groups promoting it. The general acceptance is merely due to having achieved hegemonial status as an academic paradigm. And yes, I think there is a ideological/ culture war going on as well.

That won't explain the acceptance as such. It rather would explain the motivation of certain groups promoting it. The general acceptance is merely due to having achieved hegemonial status as an academic paradigm. And yes, I think there is a ideological/ culture war going on as well.

Additionally I believe there is a lapse in the public's attitude towards Religion. Its much more enjoyable to live however you want, rather than realise and accept that you will be held accountable for your actions.

I chalk this up to people preferring to be blasé about reigning in their own desires / wants in life, (that is the case for me, I admit )

Additionally I believe there is a lapse in the public's attitude towards Religion. Its much more enjoyable to live however you want, rather than realise and accept that you will be held accountable for your actions.

I chalk this up to people preferring to be blasé about reigning in their own desires / wants in life, (that is the case for me, I admit )

gilbo

Pretend for a moment that I asked you be my friend. Suppose you said, " No way!' I would feel a sense of loss. Most organized religions make it seem like God does not have feelings about us. I think they are wrong. If God can't convince us to desire to have a relations ship with Him, He will experience a loss.

One of the things I have noticed about us humans is that we think everything is about us! What about God? How does He feel when someone He created thinks He does not exist or decides its not worh it to have a relationship with Him?

Darwin wrote a whole book about the Origin of the Species. Its crammed full of observations.

Darwin was not an armchair theorist. He started out as a Creationist, and at one time planned to become a priest. However he signed on for a five year voyage around the world in HMS Beagle. It was on that voyage and due to the observations he made that he became convinced that common descent was a better explanation for the origin of the species than special creation.

A starting point was his observation that:

Animals and plants are capable of producing far more offspring than are necessary to simply replace themselves. Therefore many of these offspring cannot possibly themselves reproduce otherwise the world would soon be overflowing

Animals and plants show variation within species

Many of these variations are in part or whole passed to the next generation

Man has taken advantage of the variation and inheritance to select and breed animals and plants that provide benefits to man.

Darwin hypothesised that natural as opposed to human selection would work to preserve those features in animals that enabled them to produce the most surviving offspring.

Geographic distribution ranked high in Darwin's mind. Why are all the kangaroos (and indeed almost all the marsupials) in Australia. Evolution of Marsupials in Australia provides a better explanation than supposing that the kangaroos disembarked from the ark at Mt Ararat and somehow made their way to Australia without leaving any trace on their way there. In the Galapagos, Darwin collected 26 birds which he thought were different species. Back homme in England skilled anatomists pointed out to him that all 26, although superficially differing, were related and Passerine birds - similar to a species in South America.

Darwin was also intrigued by the similarity of structure among animals. The skeletons of all tetrapods are very similar - with in most cases analogous bones. The hand of man, the wing of a bird, the wing of a penguin, the front foot of a horse all have bones that are clearly analagous. This is not so for human designed objects. The wheels of a car, the sails of a boat or the wings of a plane are designed and manufactured for their purpose. They do not bear signs of common origin,.

Darwin also was concerned about extinct animals. The Bible nowhere suggests animals go extinct, and yet there are far more extinct species than living ones. Why would a Creator destroy so much of his work?

Darwin was concerned about a lack of intermediate fossils. This is one level of evidence that has since turned up in abundance. Not long after Darwin printed his book - Archaeopteryx was found in Germany - clearly intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. More recently a beautiful line of fossils have been found linking whales to the land based mammal families that include hippos. Donald Prothero has published a book called "Evolution what the fossils say and why it matters" which comprehensively discusses the many many intermediate fossils. You really should read this book if you are influenced by the Creationist websites which use out of context quotes to try and push the idea that there are no intermediate fossils.

Darwin's concept of common descent was accepted by biologists almost immediately, but his mechanism of natural selection remained controversial into the 1940's. One of the reasons was that 19th Century ideas of inheritance seemed to suggest that any improvements would be rapidly diluted in the gene pool. It took the inheritance theories of Grehgor Mendel to provide an explanation of how improvements could survive and prosper. More recently the discovery of DNA and its mode of operation have provided a piucture of inheritance that is wholly consistent with evolution.

The evidence for Evolution has become so strong that many church leaders - including those in the Catholic church support it. Evolution is not inconsistent with religion. Studying the methods that God uses by studying the natural world is an honourable pursuit for many.

Additionally I believe there is a lapse in the public's attitude towards Religion. Its much more enjoyable to live however you want, rather than realise and accept that you will be held accountable for your actions. I chalk this up to people preferring to be blasé about reigning in their own desires / wants in life, (that is the case for me, I admit )

That would be traditionally or previously institutionalized religions. A turning away from this, doesn't mean people are "less religious" as such. There is just a tendency to have more relativistic and materialistically sanitized views on things. And this goes hand in hand with putting increase emphasis on ones own ego and hedonistic desires.

The Darwinian model is of course suitable to philosophical materialists and relativists, something any model involving one or more intelligent agents as origin of life and biological diversity would be a real problem for them.

1. Darwin wrote a whole book about the Origin of the Species. Its crammed full of observations.

2. Darwin was not an armchair theorist. He started out as a Creationist, and at one time planned to become a priest. However he signed on for a five year voyage around the world in HMS Beagle. It was on that voyage and due to the observations he made that he became convinced that common descent was a better explanation for the origin of the species than special creation.

3. A starting point was his observation that:

Animals and plants are capable of producing far more offspring than are necessary to simply replace themselves. Therefore many of these offspring cannot possibly themselves reproduce otherwise the world would soon be overflowing

Animals and plants show variation within species

Many of these variations are in part or whole passed to the next generation

Man has taken advantage of the variation and inheritance to select and breed animals and plants that provide benefits to man.

4. Darwin hypothesised that natural as opposed to human selection would work to preserve those features in animals that enabled them to produce the most surviving offspring.

5. Geographic distribution ranked high in Darwin's mind. Why are all the kangaroos (and indeed almost all the marsupials) in Australia. Evolution of Marsupials in Australia provides a better explanation than supposing that the kangaroos disembarked from the ark at Mt Ararat and somehow made their way to Australia without leaving any trace on their way there. In the Galapagos, Darwin collected 26 birds which he thought were different species. Back homme in England skilled anatomists pointed out to him that all 26, although superficially differing, were related and Passerine birds - similar to a species in South America.

6. Darwin was also intrigued by the similarity of structure among animals. The skeletons of all tetrapods are very similar - with in most cases analogous bones. The hand of man, the wing of a bird, the wing of a penguin, the front foot of a horse all have bones that are clearly analagous. This is not so for human designed objects. The wheels of a car, the sails of a boat or the wings of a plane are designed and manufactured for their purpose. They do not bear signs of common origin,.

7. Darwin also was concerned about extinct animals. The Bible nowhere suggests animals go extinct, and yet there are far more extinct species than living ones. Why would a Creator destroy so much of his work?

8. Darwin was concerned about a lack of intermediate fossils. This is one level of evidence that has since turned up in abundance. Not long after Darwin printed his book - Archaeopteryx was found in Germany - clearly intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. More recently a beautiful line of fossils have been found linking whales to the land based mammal families that include hippos. Donald Prothero has published a book called "Evolution what the fossils say and why it matters" which comprehensively discusses the many many intermediate fossils. You really should read this book if you are influenced by the Creationist websites which use out of context quotes to try and push the idea that there are no intermediate fossils.

9. Darwin's concept of common descent was accepted by biologists almost immediately,

10. One of the reasons was that 19th Century ideas of inheritance seemed to suggest that any improvements would be rapidly diluted in the gene pool. It took the inheritance theories of Grehgor Mendel to provide an explanation of how improvements could survive and prosper. More recently the discovery of DNA and its mode of operation have provided a piucture of inheritance that is wholly consistent with evolution.

11. The evidence for Evolution has become so strong that many church leaders - including those in the Catholic church support it. Evolution is not inconsistent with religion. Studying the methods that God uses by studying the natural world is an honourable pursuit for many.

1. Yes he did, what I am asking for is the experimental verification of the hypothesis of evolution from these observations, (the observations are not enough as per the scientific method as well as the example of the sun and stars going around the Earth example)

2. And? Not sure what this has to do with anything.

3. Yes, however from this all we can realistically derive is that animals can be varied from generation to generation, (since that is all there is evidence for), this was already known so...... However none of this supports the molecules to man evolution that is claimed.

4. Yes he did, yet in his book he claimed this hypothesis to be a theory..... As if it was already empirically verified

5. Yes, however you need to realize that evolution is merely assumed from this.. There is no way to directly demonstrate that evolution was the only cause. Therefore this is not evidence to support the hypothesis it is merely more observations on which the hypothesis is based on. Again, I am asking for the experimental data that was done

6. The same can be said for cellular structures by which there are no conceptual or physical precursors, with which to identify possible evolution. Yet again as I have said before, assuming evolution is the cause is the same as claiming "evolution did it", how are these similarities verified as being products of evolution?

7. I cannot claim whether the Bible covers this or not, however even if it isn't it doesn't matter since it should be self evident. (If it was put in then you could complain about the Bible treating us like little kids). Not everything in life needs to be spelt out. To answer your question, within Christian theology the fall of man was the cause of death and suffering.

Yet this is not evidence of evolution.

8. I already tackled this in that fossils do not and can not demonstrate via experimentation how their similarities came to be. Evolution is assumed as the conclusion, such is not science.If you wish to contend this point then please demonstrate an empirical test by which the cause of the similarities in fossils can be verified.

9. Despite the lack of empirical evidence it seems....

10. Mendel demonstrated that recessive traits can be expressed in future generations. This would be a hinderance to evolution since it means that the "old" trait will never be fully repressed therefore if we are to believe that man "evolved" from chimps we should be able to find a group of humans who have some of these recessed traits- simian appearance etc. As far as I know there is no such thing.

Additionally Mendel's laws lead to more problems for the evolutionist.

The First Law infers that an organism would normally have the same amount of DNA as its parents. Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur? And how does this not defy the first law?

The Second Law demonstrates that even if a trait were advantageous there is no absolute necessity for it to be expressed within the organism's offspring since the assortment of alleles is independent. This adds more problems for the fixation for an advantageous trait. This also leads to the regressed traits I mentioned before.

11. Unfortunately nothing you have presented here is actual evidence.

The Catholic church supports it, and? As we have discussed elsewhere, appeals to popularity are not coherent arguments.

"The influence for Evolution has become so strong that many church leaders - including those in the Catholic church support it"I fixed your sentence

10. Mendel demonstrated that recessive traits can be expressed in future generations. This would be a hinderance to evolution since it means that the "old" trait will never be fully repressed therefore if we are to believe that man "evolved" from chimps we should be able to find a group of humans who have some of these recessed traits- simian appearance etc. As far as I know there is no such thing.

Additionally Mendel's laws lead to more problems for the evolutionist.

The First Law infers that an organism would normally have the same amount of DNA as its parents. Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur? And how does this not defy the first law?

The Second Law demonstrates that even if a trait were advantageous there is no absolute necessity for it to be expressed within the organism's offspring since the assortment of alleles is independent. This adds more problems for the fixation for an advantageous trait. This also leads to the regressed traits I mentioned before.

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124Here's a confirmed example of a healthy human with a reduced chromosome count due to fusion events (44 instead of normal 46). The mechanism for this is balanced translocations (different numbers/arrangement of chromosomes without loss of genes) coupled with small breeding population.